It certainly answers the question, though, that yes, he is aware of the EU.

Thus my disappointment.

Though if he knows about it and doesn't care about it, then that's a good thing.

You like Trek but not the SW EU? How odd..

I like the EU just fine. I just don't want it cluttering my movies based on George's outlines from 35 years ago.

I especially don't want the Yuuzhan Vong in it, who were and still are a terrible idea.

No but if you can slip in Katarn or Horn without messing with the plot, why not. Just as EU fan service. Most people don't care that Quinlan Vos was "technically" in EP1, but I bet we could all point him out. And Aalyaa Secura, I bet we can all point her out as well in every scene she is in. Not to mention the random characters that aren't EU. I bet we could all point out Seboca in EP 2...

Something I just posted in a thread regarding his interviews about Star Wars.

Quote from him: "I still think it's wrong to be on Anakin's side."

Way to oversimplify the entire issue. Who the **** is genuinely "on Anakin's side" as far as being delusional and thinking that some old dude has the secret to stopping death, and killing Jedi kids is the way to learn that secret?

It's not about being "on Anakin's side," but since 1983 I have wanted to understand the reasons for his fall, since that understanding increased the impact of his redemption. It's not about agreeing with Anakin, being "on his side," or thinking that any of us would do the same in his shoes, it's about recognizing a very human story. And Abrams thinking that the story is about "being on Anakin's side" or not makes me nervous.

Something I just posted in a thread regarding his interviews about Star Wars.

Quote from him: "I still think it's wrong to be on Anakin's side."

Way to oversimplify the entire issue. Who the **** is genuinely "on Anakin's side" as far as being delusional and thinking that some old dude has the secret to stopping death, and killing Jedi kids is the way to learn that secret?

It's not about being "on Anakin's side," but since 1983 I have wanted to understand the reasons for his fall, since that understanding increased the impact of his redemption. It's not about agreeing with Anakin, being "on his side," or thinking that any of us would do the same in his shoes, it's about recognizing a very human story. And Abrams thinking that the story is about "being on Anakin's side" or not makes me nervous.

Honestly I think Anakin's chapter is over, he will be reference as a redeemed Sith Lord. I doubt we are resurrecting Vader. It is time for Luke to be the older generation and a new generation to step up. As to Luke, JJ will treat with reverence as he would Lucas himself.

I just watched Abrams' 2007 TED talk (available here). I have to say I was very impressed. Even though I had mixed feelings about Star Trek and Super 8, it's clear from his TED talk that he at least understands on some level what made the Original Trilogy such classics. He emphasizes the role of mystery and character development in engaging audiences. If he can actually walk the walk, and not just talk the talk, then he could do great things with Episode VII.

With JJ Abrams directing, my excitement for Episode VII has diminished almost completely. He's not a very good choice IMO, although I understand why Disney picked him. It boils down to three reasons: 1.) He "rescued" two franchises in Mission Impossible and Star Trek. 2.) He's become a fan favorite amongst the geeky internet culture. 3.) He's good friends with, and a protege of Speilberg and KK. You know the old saying of "it's not what you know, it's who you know"? Well, that's basically the reason he was chosen, unfortunately.

So why do I think he's a poor choice? For one, I don't think he's that good. His visual style (so far) has run counter to that of Star Wars. The six Star Wars films that exist today have a very simple, yet elegant and old-fashioned style. JJ Abrams films everything as if it were a car commercial, with heavy use of handheld cameras, heavy use of filters, and heavy use of theatrical lighting. Another problem I have with him is that he doesn't seem to understand the source material of the projects he works on. He tried to infuse Mission Impossible 3 with a lot of heavy drama and gravitas (which fits into the whole pattern of making everything dark and serious these days). The result was an ok film (personally, I thought it was a borefest), but it didn't really capture the feel of the original Peter Graves TV show. The previous ones didn't either, but he could have at least tried. The fact that he couldn't balance making a decent film with harkening back to the original series proves his deficiencies as a director. Star Trek is the same way. On its own, it's a fairly decent and entertaining romp, but (like MI3) it absolutely fails in capturing what made Star Trek such a beloved franchise to begin with. Instead of making an entertaining film that was also intellectually stimulating like the original Trek series (and some of the movies and later series), he settled for making a film that was just entertaining, proving once again, that he lacks depth as a director and storyteller. Super 8 was nothing more than a giant attempt to suck up to Steven Spielberg. I know it's meant to be an homage to 70s/early 80s Spielberg, but he fails even at that. Does anyone really consider it a classic on par with Jaws, Close Encounters, or E.T.? No. Again, he overestimates just how good he is by playing Spielberg's notes, but not Spielberg's music, if you catch my drift. However, he did succeed in getting into Spielberg's fold with that movie, hence part of the reason he got the Episode VII gig.

As you can see, I'm not the biggest fan of his work, although I did find Star Trek entertaining. I could overlook all of this by assuming he will change his style and work from the source material (in this case, Lucas' treatment and Arndt's script), but unfortunately, I don't think he will. You see another MAJOR problem with JJ Abrams directing this is that he has a lot of clout. With his production company being involved, he'll probably have the power to completely throw out whatever Lucas and Arndt have cooked up, and bring in his own ideas and writers for how HE thinks Episode VII should be. It wouldn't surprise me if that sort of freedom was part of his contract. Episode VII would probably have been far, far better off with a director that was more like a hired mercenary: there to simply translate the written word to the screen in the most simple and elegant manner possible. Instead, we're going to get a Star Wars movie that's 99% JJ Abrams and only 1% Star Wars. Trust me, guys, this is going to suck. Big time.

Bottom line: The only positive about JJ Abrams directing Episode VII will be the acting. He'll definitely be able to get a better performance out of the actors than Lucas did with the prequels, but that will probably be the only highlight of the movie. Since this will be a JJ film down to the very core, expect him to repeat the same mistakes he made in the past by not "understanding" the source material. All the thing we love about Star Wars, such as the mythology, and lore will be thrown out in exchange for a lot of sarcastic one liners and hip comedy elements. This will be a reboot more than a sequel, and those of us that appreciate Star Wars for it's deeper elements will be left high and dry. Like Star Trek, it will be entertaining, and a crowd pleaser, but nothing more. A two hour car commercial with lightsabers.

Big difference being that he's a Star Wars fan, in which case he is more likely to understand and respect the source material. He stated he was not a Trek fan when he did ST and the stylings of the film upset various Trekkers because they felt it was too "Star Wars" in the way it was done. But that is what JJ was going for, he didn't think he'd ever be able to direct a SW movie because they were meant to be all finished and so Trek was the closest thing he would get to doing one (he thought at the time).
Fans tend to treat material better, look at Favreau & Iron Man or Whedon & Avengers

Now JJ has the chance to do actual Star Wars, no reason to think he won't do it well.

It's worth noting also that Irvin Kershner did a lot of Empire the way he wanted it done, and it turned out very well.

Big difference being that he's a Star Wars fan, in which case he is more likely to understand and respect the source material. He stated he was not a Trek fan when he did ST and the stylings of the film upset various Trekkers because they felt it was too "Star Wars" in the way it was done. But that is what JJ was going for, he didn't think he'd ever be able to direct a SW movie because they were meant to be all finished and so Trek was the closest thing he would get to doing one (he thought at the time).
Fans tend to treat material better, look at Favreau & Iron Man or Whedon & Avengers

Now JJ has the chance to do actual Star Wars, no reason to think he won't do it well.

It's worth noting also that Irvin Kershner did a lot of Empire the way he wanted it done, and it turned out very well.

Imagine how Star Wars would look without Irvin Kershner and Lawrence Kasdan? (Shudder). The more I think about JJ taking the helm, the more excited I get.

Of course it does. There's no way the only characters we will be rooting for are Han, Luke and Leia. He'll want to create new characters that mean just as much to audiences as the big 3 did/ do. Whether or not the quote was made a few years back regarding other formats, the sentiment will absolutely remain the same.

Something I just posted in a thread regarding his interviews about Star Wars.

Quote from him: "I still think it's wrong to be on Anakin's side."

Way to oversimplify the entire issue. Who the **** is genuinely "on Anakin's side" as far as being delusional and thinking that some old dude has the secret to stopping death, and killing Jedi kids is the way to learn that secret?

It's not about being "on Anakin's side," but since 1983 I have wanted to understand the reasons for his fall, since that understanding increased the impact of his redemption. It's not about agreeing with Anakin, being "on his side," or thinking that any of us would do the same in his shoes, it's about recognizing a very human story. And Abrams thinking that the story is about "being on Anakin's side" or not makes me nervous.

I hear ya. My first thought was "did this guy not pay attention during Return of the Jedi?" There's still good in him.

It doesn't make me nervous, but I don't feel he gets the character. But I think it works for the story he's been hired to tell. He's telling the story of the galaxy that probably doesn't exactly remember Vader's legacy very fondly, aside from Luke. Perhaps this open dialogue among the creators could breed interesting conflict within the story. Like Leia saying "you know what, bro, it's always creeped me out that you've hero worshipped the guy who tortured me and froze my husband in carbonite."

Big difference being that he's a Star Wars fan, in which case he is more likely to understand and respect the source material. He stated he was not a Trek fan when he did ST and the stylings of the film upset various Trekkers because they felt it was too "Star Wars" in the way it was done. But that is what JJ was going for, he didn't think he'd ever be able to direct a SW movie because they were meant to be all finished and so Trek was the closest thing he would get to doing one (he thought at the time).
Fans tend to treat material better, look at Favreau & Iron Man or Whedon & Avengers

Now JJ has the chance to do actual Star Wars, no reason to think he won't do it well.

It's worth noting also that Irvin Kershner did a lot of Empire the way he wanted it done, and it turned out very well.

JJ Abrams being a huge fan of Star Wars makes me even more worried. I'd rather he be a fan of the underlying themes of Star Wars, such as mythology, Joseph Campbell's work, and Kurosawa films. My fear is that he will be so emotionally attached to making a good Star Wars film, that he forgets to make Episode VII a good film in and of itself. Does that make sense? Iron Man and Avengers are above average, but there's no way they're on par with cinematic masterpieces such as ANH and ESB. In fact, I think if Robert Downey Jr hadn't turned in that smart aleck performance, Iron Man would have bit the dust and been forgotten. People only like The Avengers because of its epic scale, the cheeky dialoge (again), and the Hulk slamming Loki around. None of that is on par with "I am your father" or even the throne room scenes in RotJ, and probably won't stand the test of time.

Irvin Kershner came from that old-school Hollywood background, which was a time when fanboys didn't exist. He approached making Empire the same way a carpenter approaches making a new cabinent or coffee table. That's what I think is needed over someone like Favreau, Whedon, or in this case, Abrams. It sounds insane, but I'd feel a slightly more comfortable with an 80 year old British soap opera director than some foaming at the mouth, rabid fanboy. Basically, I think Episode VII needs someone who will approach the material from a solid craftsmanship point of view. Someone who will treat the characters realistically as story characters, not necessarily Star Wars characters. I don't know, I just get the sense that the choice of Abrams (and him being this uber-nerd fan and all) may come back to bite us in the a**.

As you can see, I'm not the biggest fan of his work, although I did find Star Trek entertaining. I could overlook all of this by assuming he will change his style and work from the source material (in this case, Lucas' treatment and Arndt's script), but unfortunately, I don't think he will. You see another MAJOR problem with JJ Abrams directing this is that he has a lot of clout. With his production company being involved, he'll probably have the power to completely throw out whatever Lucas and Arndt have cooked up, and bring in his own ideas and writers for how HE thinks Episode VII should be. It wouldn't surprise me if that sort of freedom was part of his contract. Episode VII would probably have been far, far better off with a director that was more like a hired mercenary: there to simply translate the written word to the screen in the most simple and elegant manner possible. Instead, we're going to get a Star Wars movie that's 99% JJ Abrams and only 1% Star Wars. Trust me, guys, this is going to suck. Big time.

Irvin Kershner came from that old-school Hollywood background, which was a time when fanboys didn't exist. He approached making Empire the same way a carpenter approaches making a new cabinent or coffee table. That's what I think is needed over someone like Favreau, Whedon, or in this case, Abrams. It sounds insane, but I'd feel a slightly more comfortable with an 80 year old British soap opera director than some foaming at the mouth, rabid fanboy. Basically, I think Episode VII needs someone who will approach the material from a solid craftsmanship point of view. Someone who will treat the characters realistically as story characters, not necessarily Star Wars characters. I don't know, I just get the sense that the choice of Abrams (and him being this uber-nerd fan and all) may come back to bite us in the a**.

I agree completely. I would be more comfortable with someone like a Martin Campbell, Roger Spottiswoode or Michael Apted over J.J. Abrams.